BUMER WA`ER DEEPER STAMER

Will the election of Labour's Keir Stamer as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom make any difference to the situation of ordinary Britons and the relationship of conflict in foreign policy?

 

By Sir Charlattam 

The day after the election the streets of London did not change at all and the apathy of the public remained as it had been since the day before. Why should we Britons change our faces over the election of a new bureaucrat who is as conservative, if not more so, than the banker Sunak?

So when I sat down in my favourite pub in Piccadilly Circus for breakfast, the look on the face of the girl who came to serve me said it all. 

It didn't end there. When I bumped into my old friend and running buddy "Joe" who lives on the east side of London, as soon as he looked at me he said with his characteristic sarcasm "Bumer, wa`er, deeper the better man has won and it's Stamer" or something like that. He wasn't really celebrating, he was just trying to tease me with his lousy cockney sense of humour to see how I would react, as he knows very well who the new PM is.

Keir Stamer, a lawyer who took over the leadership of the Labour Party made it to 10 Downing Street for one reason: Britain was going anywhere and someone had to be put in. Some see him as a centre-right Labour and pro-Israel sympathiser who will continue to protect the Israeli position, others see him as a centrist who will seek balance without such extreme tendencies, and others see him as a true Labour man with the pragmatism that goes with it.

As a lawyer and human rights specialist, it would be quite difficult to argue that he should continue to endorse the massacres and genocide in Palestine which is internationally recognised. Although he has already shown his complacency with local Zionist sectors, appealing to anti-Semitism to try to justify silence about what Israel is committing is a very weak argument for a lawyer of his ilk.

If the new Prime Minister were a staunch friend of the IFC that should not interfere with his functional loyalty to the British people as he has been elected to represent their interests and those of the whole realm. Humanity does not go one way and I think no one should have to tell him that. From what is known of his sober personality we should not expect ridiculous stridencies of populism like those of the clownish Johnson or the "airhead" Truss who helped a lot in the so-called "Tory" disgrace.

Although Stamer tries to validate his sympathy for Israel by talking about how he secretly hated Corbyn for his support for the Palestinian cause, that should not be a licence to carry on with the same script as the CFI-friendly Tories.

There is much to get back on track and Stamer knows he does not have the time, let alone the public mood, to splurge. Either all Britons are listened to and served equally, or only those who go to synagogue and contribute the millions to fund local politicians. Halting the plummeting domestic socio-economic-political situation left by Rishi Sunak and fifteen years of conservative policies with a foreign policy wedded to Washington's guidelines is too much to change in one fell swoop.

Stamer appears sober and serious, character traits that suit him well for leading a country. Some might even say he looks more like a typical Conservative than Labour. But these particularities will help him as he will find a structure in the state (especially in MI6) with many Conservative subjects and especially in the foreign policy of the Foreign Office, a nest of pro-Israeli followers who will not want to spill their sympathies with the Jewish people but rather their political loyalty to Netanyahu and his gang of Kosher criminals who, with the Conservatives, showed their tough faces.

He has said "country first, party second", which sounds very gentlemanly and even credible, but the vested interests that exist after so many years of being pushed by the Americans into other people's backyards like Libya, Ukraine, the Red Sea and all that is happening in the Gaza Strip, it is very difficult for him to extricate himself and the country from these dark compromises left by the Conservatives. 

Britain needs to return to balance and, if you like, apply the BREXIT doctrine in a good sense. That would be that the decisions made in London are for the benefit of and for the British people and not for cliques operating in parliament that in turn respond to orders from Washington that at the same time bring with them corporations and private subjects linked especially to arms deals and developments that will only benefit them.

Two essential issues he already has to resolve are the fall in employment, the rise in the cost of living which in large part stem from the exit from the pandemic and the subjection to US geopolitics over Ukraine which ended in a war that has only brought more calamity for all European citizens, including of course the British.

In reference to the odious comparisons that some have already been making with former PM Tony Blair, beyond the notorious personality differences that anyone can see between a dour Stamer and that charlatan from Edinburgh, let's hope that for the good of the British and the rest of the EU he does not end up being similar. It was Blair, behind that sinister smile, who, having taken umbrage at the findings of weapons inspector David Kelly who refuted arguments about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, reportedly ordered measures to silence him. And what happened? Kelly turned up in July 2003 dead in his garden staging a suicide.

We must not forget that Blair, in order to ingratiate himself with the US neo-conservatives who were encouraged by AIPAC and others, got the country into two calamitous wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, where, in addition to the lies that underpinned them, horrendous human rights violations, trampling on international law, were proven, as reflected in the "Chilcot report". 

Let us just hope that the new PM does not mess up as his predecessors did.